P4P on MMA Playground

I was looking at the pound for pound rankings on this site and people have Brock Lesnar in the top 10 pound 4 pound. Now this is baffling to me, Brock Lesnar is a great figher but to be top 10??? His stand up is developing (we know he has power) but its still not technically great, his submission defense is getting better but his one true factor is his size. Are you telling me that size (which he has won most of his fights by) is a key factor to P4P?

The idea is since his first fight, he's done nothing but dominate, and therefore how can you say he isn't top p4p? He's avenged his only loss, and he's beat all top level competition.

It's called Hype.

The hype monster was behind Brock full force.

Ironically, Lesnar doesn't appear on the "Fan Favorites" list.

---

Posted by marcoDGK

It's called Hype.

The hype monster was behind Brock full force.

---

Orrrr, his second fight was againd ex UFC heavyweight champ Frank Mir, who he was pounding unconscious until he got subbed. Then his 3ed fight ever he dominated Heath Herring who had over 40 fights.

He took out Randy when Randy Mir, and Nog were the only real talents around, and then smashed Mir. Nog and Randy are just done for and the new crop are now developed enough to get title shots.

Explain how the hype distorted Brock for me?

Some people have different philosophies on p4p. It's such an abstract concept that no p4p list can truly be legit.

For example-

If you're the type that believes p4p means your skills are so good that regardless of your weight you could fight in any division with your skillset and dominate then you probably think A. Silva, Jose Aldo, Fedor and BJ Penn are top p4p fighters. This type recognizes that Brock Lesnar's skillset is nowhere near comparable to someone like Anderson Silva or Jose Aldo and so does not believe in his top p4p status. We'll call this a TYPE 1 p4p.

If you're the type that believes p4p means your dominance within your own division is so great against even its best fighters that it has catapulted you into a stratosphere filled with division dominant fighters because no one in your own division could possibly compare then you're probably the type who thinks GSP, BJ Penn, and Anderson Silva and Brock Lesnar are p4p greats. We'll call these TYPE 2 p4p.

If you're the type that believes p4p means you have shown an ability to fight regardless of your weight against top competition in all weight classes regardless of a size disadvantage then you're probably the type who thinks BJ Penn, Dan Henderson, Fedor, and Miguel Torres are p4p greats. This type also thinks people like Brock Lesnar deserve no credit because the majority of the time he fights at a weight advantage and not disadvantage. We'll call this TYPE 3 p4p

Those are the 3 most common types I've seen. Now sometimes there is a blend of the two or the fighters I listed aren't exactly who that type associates with, but for the most part after years of observation this is what I've noticed.

It sounds like the majority of the playground believes in the TYPE 2 p4p philosophy. Personally, I'm a blend of the TYPE 1 and TYPE 3 p4p philosophies and I believe Fedor is the p4p king followed by Anderson Silva. I think your skills dictate your rank along the p4p ladder and that fights in which you were at a size disadvantage should be factored into the equation. By this philosophy there is no question Fedor is the p4p king since he consistently fights at a weight disadvantage and has bested the best in their own element.

---

Posted by Jackelope

Some people have different philosophies on p4p. It's such an abstract concept that no p4p list can truly be legit.

For example-

If you're the type that believes p4p means your skills are so good that regardless of your weight you could fight in any division with your skillset and dominate then you probably think A. Silva, Jose Aldo, Fedor and BJ Penn are top p4p fighters. This type recognizes that Brock Lesnar's skillset is nowhere near comparable to someone like Anderson Silva or Jose Aldo and so does not believe in his top p4p status. We'll call this a TYPE 1 p4p.

If you're the type that believes p4p means your dominance within your own division is so great against even its best fighters that it has catapulted you into a stratosphere filled with division dominant fighters because no one in your own division could possibly compare then you're probably the type who thinks GSP, BJ Penn, and Anderson Silva and Brock Lesnar are p4p greats. We'll call these TYPE 2 p4p.

If you're the type that believes p4p means you have shown an ability to fight regardless of your weight against top competition in all weight classes regardless of a size disadvantage then you're probably the type who thinks BJ Penn, Dan Henderson, Fedor, and Miguel Torres are p4p greats. This type also thinks people like Brock Lesnar deserve no credit because the majority of the time he fights at a weight advantage and not disadvantage. We'll call this TYPE 3 p4p

Those are the 3 most common types I've seen. Now sometimes there is a blend of the two or the fighters I listed aren't exactly who that type associates with, but for the most part after years of observation this is what I've noticed.

It sounds like the majority of the playground believes in the TYPE 2 p4p philosophy. Personally, I'm a blend of the TYPE 1 and TYPE 3 p4p philosophies and I believe Fedor is the p4p king followed by Anderson Silva. I think your skills dictate your rank along the p4p ladder and that fights in which you were at a size disadvantage should be factored into the equation. By this philosophy there is no question Fedor is the p4p king since he consistently fights at a weight disadvantage and has bested the best in their own element.

---

for me it's about greatness in general. It's about what level of opponent you're beating, whether you've beat enough top guys consistently, how stacked your class is, and how often you compete. Skillset plays a role though for sure.

For instance I cant give Fedor a top 3 spot till he beats someone. Alistair is not enough. Largely untested Rogers is not enough. Most people base his ranking on his history and his exciting finishes. But he doesn't fight top guys consistently and more than once a year any more. Beating Werdum means nothing when you consider he never even fought for a title in an incredibly weak HW division in the UFC.

And btw if you were to base skills as who your P4P is you would never be able to list a fighter over 155 pounds, because those fighters use every skill they have every fight and if they have a gaping hole they lose that's it.

The higher the weight generally the more imcomplete the fighter.

Imagine a fighter like Anderson fighting at 145/155, he's die because the reflexes and speed are always top notch and his lack of a wrestling game would get him killed, keep in mind Anderson is my second favorite figher.

Same with Lyoto and he is my favorite all time right now.

No P4P rankings are very fair. At least in MM trying to come up with rankings past top 5 P4P is very difficult

To me, the equation to determine who the top p4p fighter is, is this....

If every fighter were the exact same size and possessed the same exact skill set they presently do, who would win? If they were all 10 inches tall and the same exact weight, who would win?

IMO, top 3 hands down are Fedor, Anderson, and GSP.

I go by the "if they were the same weight naturally" mantra.

I take my top ten p4p, and make em all fight each other in my imagination. The fighter that wins the most matches in my fictitious kumite is the fighter thats #1.

---

Posted by gspfan

To me, the equation to determine who the top p4p fighter is, is this....

If every fighter were the exact same size and possessed the same exact skill set they presently do, who would win? If they were all 10 inches tall and the same exact weight, who would win?

IMO, top 3 hands down are Fedor, Anderson, and GSP.

---

That would be the TYPE 1 p4p. I probably just worded it a little confusing. This is a much more straightforward way of putting it.

---

Posted by seanfu

for me it's about greatness in general. It's about what level of opponent you're beating, whether you've beat enough top guys consistently, how stacked your class is, and how often you compete. Skillset plays a role though for sure.

For instance I cant give Fedor a top 3 spot till he beats someone. Alistair is not enough. Largely untested Rogers is not enough. Most people base his ranking on his history and his exciting finishes. But he doesn't fight top guys consistently and more than once a year any more. Beating Werdum means nothing when you consider he never even fought for a title in an incredibly weak HW division in the UFC.

And btw if you were to base skills as who your P4P is you would never be able to list a fighter over 155 pounds, because those fighters use every skill they have every fight and if they have a gaping hole they lose that's it.

The higher the weight generally the more imcomplete the fighter.

Imagine a fighter like Anderson fighting at 145/155, he's die because the reflexes and speed are always top notch and his lack of a wrestling game would get him killed, keep in mind Anderson is my second favorite figher.

Same with Lyoto and he is my favorite all time right now.

No P4P rankings are very fair. At least in MM trying to come up with rankings past top 5 P4P is very difficult

---

Your point about Fedor is fair, but I'd like to point out that Fedor has fought just as many times as Brock Lesnar over the last two years against arguably better heavyweight competition. Combined with his past, that's probably why it's difficult for a lot of people to remove him from a top three or four P4P spot and the #1 heavyweight spot until he loses.

As for the part about reflexes, one would assume that if BJ Penn suddenly was 185 pounds he'd be a few inches taller as well and would be a little slower than he is at lightweight. Imaginative scenarios like that are why it's so difficult to generate meaningful P4P rankings: nobody can really tell what Anderson Silva would be like if he was suddenly 235 pounds, 6'6, and a little slowed down and was fighting Fedor Emelianenko.

P4P is a term invented because of Sugar Ray Robinson, a boxer so gifted that he generally dominated multiple divisions despite being undersized, and using that definition, I find myself in agreement with Jackelope about blending Type 1 and Type 3. It's also why I can never envision putting Brock Lesnar into a top-ten pound-for-pound ranking, even if he were categorized as the top heavyweight in the world and why I think Anderson Silva is the P4P GOAT, since he's demonstrated triple-divisional dominance throughout his career.

---

Posted by TheGodfather1024

I was looking at the pound for pound rankings on this site and people have Brock Lesnar in the top 10 pound 4 pound. Now this is baffling to me, Brock Lesnar is a great figher but to be top 10??? His stand up is developing (we know he has power) but its still not technically great, his submission defense is getting better but his one true factor is his size. Are you telling me that size (which he has won most of his fights by) is a key factor to P4P?

---

I understand where you're coming from.
I think to myself how Brock has beaten Couture,Mir,and Herring, yet I think JDS,Cain,and Carwin could do that as well.Granted they've had more than 5 fights. I think once Carwin and Brock fight it will put the HW division within the UFC into a better perspective.

---

Posted by lohmann



Imaginative scenarios like that are why it's so difficult to generate meaningful P4P rankings: nobody can really tell what Anderson Silva would be like if he was suddenly 235 pounds, 6'6, and a little slowed down and was fighting Fedor Emelianenko.

---

Id agree if instead of Meaningful you said Accepted. But...

I disagree, i think it all depends on how you learn. Now granted, it would be nearly impossible to relay that information to the world in way they can understand it, as it is almost completely subjective. But to the individual who prefers that method, i feel it is the most meaningful way of ranking.

Once you accept the notion that Rankings are all subjective and can never truly be agreed upon since the parameters are what we individually choose them to be, then you have free reign to dive into the subjectivity of the matter, and feel you're way around.


Like for instance Anderson v. Fedor: Anderson is arguably 10-15 pounds lighter than Fedor, as fedor likes to keep the gut for a lowered center of gravity and the benefits that come with it. With 15 pounds being the average weight difference between Weight classes, and the average jump in height being 1&1/2 between weight classes, i think its fair to say that Anderson would come in at 6'4 with roughly a 79" reach while weighing fedor's natural weight. Now that they are the same size, and i know intuitively the rate at which fighters slow as they move up in weight, i can compare their stengths and weaknesses to the other fighter, to make an educated guess as to how the fight would turn out, on average.

And from there on its just the same as choosing any other fight that we choose here on the playground. How do they match-up?

Now i could go into it and describe why i think fedor wins this match, but thats not necassary. I just wanted to illustrate that using this method, you can come up with meaningful ways of conceptualizing a fictitious fight. It just depends on if you can incorporate all the necassary variables into the equation so that you're analyzing all the right stuff.

Hopefully that made sense, its 3 o clock in the morn-in'.

---

Posted by Pookie

---

Posted by lohmann



Imaginative scenarios like that are why it's so difficult to generate meaningful P4P rankings: nobody can really tell what Anderson Silva would be like if he was suddenly 235 pounds, 6'6, and a little slowed down and was fighting Fedor Emelianenko.

---

Id agree if instead of Meaningful you said Accepted. But...

I disagree, i think it all depends on how you learn. Now granted, it would be nearly impossible to relay that information to the world in way they can understand it, as it is almost completely subjective. But to the individual who prefers that method, i feel it is the most meaningful way of ranking.

Once you accept the notion that Rankings are all subjective and can never truly be agreed upon since the parameters are what we individually choose them to be, then you have free reign to dive into the subjectivity of the matter, and feel you're way around.


Like for instance Anderson v. Fedor: Anderson is arguably 10-15 pounds lighter than Fedor, as fedor likes to keep the gut for a lowered center of gravity and the benefits that come with it. With 15 pounds being the average weight difference between Weight classes, and the average jump in height being 1&1/2 between weight classes, i think its fair to say that Anderson would come in at 6'4 with roughly a 79" reach while weighing fedor's natural weight. Now that they are the same size, and i know intuitively the rate at which fighters slow as they move up in weight, i can compare their stengths and weaknesses to the other fighter, to make an educated guess as to how the fight would turn out, on average.

And from there on its just the same as choosing any other fight that we choose here on the playground. How do they match-up?

Now i could go into it and describe why i think fedor wins this match, but thats not necassary. I just wanted to illustrate that using this method, you can come up with meaningful ways of conceptualizing a fictitious fight. It just depends on if you can incorporate all the necassary variables into the equation so that you're analyzing all the right stuff.

Hopefully that made sense, its 3 o clock in the morn-in'.

---

Semantics aside, I think we agree. Except nobody with more than 20 or 30 fights picked on MMAPlayground has a perfect record, which is why I think those imaginative scenarios (especially pitting two fighters that it is difficult to envision losing) are so difficult to accurately predict.

I don't think we disagree by the way.

Mostly though: if Anderson Silva was the same weight (with adjusted dimensions) as Fedor Emelianenko, he'd win. Just saying.

I think determining my p4p list is pretty easy (please don't check mine here on the playground though, I think it's a bit outdated). I look at the most dominating forces in each weight division where there's legit competition and then compare their performances to that of fighters in other divisions (could be the same division too obviously). Brock Lesnar has clearly shown himself to be a top 10 p4p fighter by his sheer dominance against only quality and legit fighters. He hasn't fought a lot, but your veteran status means nothing if you have ben fighting hacks for the last few years.

---

Posted by gspfan

To me, the equation to determine who the top p4p fighter is, is this....

If every fighter were the exact same size and possessed the same exact skill set they presently do, who would win?
..............
IMO, top 3 hands down are Fedor, Anderson, and GSP.

---

One interesting thing about the argument of every fighter being the exact same size with the exact same skillset to me is the fact that IMO GSP drops significantly in this style of ranking.

GSP's conditioning and strength lend themselves to his division dominance IMO. It is for this reason that I feel basing your p4p strictly on the principals of skillset is inherently flawed. That's why I'm a fan of mixing type 1 and 3 p4p.

If you look at Fedor and Anderson you will see that their physical strength and/or stature do not account at all for their division dominance. Also the two of them have had loads of success while fighting different sized opponents. GSP has been at 170 since I've followed his career.

---

Posted by lohmann

---

Posted by Pookie

---

Posted by lohmann



Imaginative scenarios like that are why it's so difficult to generate meaningful P4P rankings: nobody can really tell what Anderson Silva would be like if he was suddenly 235 pounds, 6'6, and a little slowed down and was fighting Fedor Emelianenko.

---

Id agree if instead of Meaningful you said Accepted. But...

I disagree, i think it all depends on how you learn. Now granted, it would be nearly impossible to relay that information to the world in way they can understand it, as it is almost completely subjective. But to the individual who prefers that method, i feel it is the most meaningful way of ranking.

Once you accept the notion that Rankings are all subjective and can never truly be agreed upon since the parameters are what we individually choose them to be, then you have free reign to dive into the subjectivity of the matter, and feel you're way around.


Like for instance Anderson v. Fedor: Anderson is arguably 10-15 pounds lighter than Fedor, as fedor likes to keep the gut for a lowered center of gravity and the benefits that come with it. With 15 pounds being the average weight difference between Weight classes, and the average jump in height being 1&1/2 between weight classes, i think its fair to say that Anderson would come in at 6'4 with roughly a 79" reach while weighing fedor's natural weight. Now that they are the same size, and i know intuitively the rate at which fighters slow as they move up in weight, i can compare their stengths and weaknesses to the other fighter, to make an educated guess as to how the fight would turn out, on average.

And from there on its just the same as choosing any other fight that we choose here on the playground. How do they match-up?

Now i could go into it and describe why i think fedor wins this match, but thats not necassary. I just wanted to illustrate that using this method, you can come up with meaningful ways of conceptualizing a fictitious fight. It just depends on if you can incorporate all the necassary variables into the equation so that you're analyzing all the right stuff.

Hopefully that made sense, its 3 o clock in the morn-in'.

---

Semantics aside, I think we agree. Except nobody with more than 20 or 30 fights picked on MMAPlayground has a perfect record, which is why I think those imaginative scenarios (especially pitting two fighters that it is difficult to envision losing) are so difficult to accurately predict.

I don't think we disagree by the way.

Mostly though: if Anderson Silva was the same weight (with adjusted dimensions) as Fedor Emelianenko, he'd win. Just saying.

---

So would GSP, so would BJ Penn, in Lyoto's case he might too.

Listen matching them up same size is stupid for one reason, match them u at lightweight and brock isn't even top ten, he's like a sean sherk. Match them up at lightweight and Lyoto isn't even top ten. Match them up and lightweight and Fedors heavy punches and reliance on being significantly faster and better transitions than his oponents is gone so he falls below top ten. Put it at heaviweight and all GSP's well roundedness means nothing because his endurence wouldn't be high enough to carry his style. His hands aren't heavy enough and that left head kick is impractical and useless.


Take into account that style varies a lot due to what bodies can handle. P4P via simulating fights at same weight is a very simplistic and largely stupid way to condict P4P. Especially since some fighters win on size and are dominant because of that (GSP gets a lot of help) Fedor actually seems to have an advantage being small with huge power.

---

Posted by seanfu

So would GSP, so would BJ Penn, in Lyoto's case he might too.

Listen matching them up same size is stupid for one reason, match them u at lightweight and brock isn't even top ten, he's like a sean sherk. Match them up at lightweight and Lyoto isn't even top ten. Match them up and lightweight and Fedors heavy punches and reliance on being significantly faster and better transitions than his oponents is gone so he falls below top ten. Put it at heaviweight and all GSP's well roundedness means nothing because his endurence wouldn't be high enough to carry his style. His hands aren't heavy enough and that left head kick is impractical and useless.


Take into account that style varies a lot due to what bodies can handle. P4P via simulating fights at same weight is a very simplistic and largely stupid way to condict P4P. Especially since some fighters win on size and are dominant because of that (GSP gets a lot of help) Fedor actually seems to have an advantage being small with huge power.

---

You're not factoring in the whole equation when you make an assumption like that.

People who rank based on skillset also account for gains/losses whether they were to go up in weight or down. Take for example someone dropping GSP's skillset down to 145 to fight. This person would automatically assume that if GSP were to somehow be in that weight class that his speed, strength and endurance at 170 would match his equivalent at 145. I.E. his speed would improve, his strength would decrease, and his endurance would improve. They're not saying with his current speed, endurance and strength take him down there. They're saying take his skillset and put it into an equivalent body at 145 lbs.

All arguments for p4p are inherently flawed. p4p is such an abstract concept that you could nitpick every little piece of it to destroy someone's logic. You have to give people the benefit of the doubt where things like this are concerned. Everyone knows the speed of a 275 lb'er doesn't come anywhere close to the speed of a 155'er. Like I said- benefit of the doubt.

and for the record I'm not one of those people who bases it purely on skillset. Just defending them a bit and giving them the benefit of the doubt.

---

Posted by seanfu

---

Posted by lohmann

---

Posted by Pookie

---

Posted by lohmann



Imaginative scenarios like that are why it's so difficult to generate meaningful P4P rankings: nobody can really tell what Anderson Silva would be like if he was suddenly 235 pounds, 6'6, and a little slowed down and was fighting Fedor Emelianenko.

---

Id agree if instead of Meaningful you said Accepted. But...

I disagree, i think it all depends on how you learn. Now granted, it would be nearly impossible to relay that information to the world in way they can understand it, as it is almost completely subjective. But to the individual who prefers that method, i feel it is the most meaningful way of ranking.

Once you accept the notion that Rankings are all subjective and can never truly be agreed upon since the parameters are what we individually choose them to be, then you have free reign to dive into the subjectivity of the matter, and feel you're way around.


Like for instance Anderson v. Fedor: Anderson is arguably 10-15 pounds lighter than Fedor, as fedor likes to keep the gut for a lowered center of gravity and the benefits that come with it. With 15 pounds being the average weight difference between Weight classes, and the average jump in height being 1&1/2 between weight classes, i think its fair to say that Anderson would come in at 6'4 with roughly a 79" reach while weighing fedor's natural weight. Now that they are the same size, and i know intuitively the rate at which fighters slow as they move up in weight, i can compare their stengths and weaknesses to the other fighter, to make an educated guess as to how the fight would turn out, on average.

And from there on its just the same as choosing any other fight that we choose here on the playground. How do they match-up?

Now i could go into it and describe why i think fedor wins this match, but thats not necassary. I just wanted to illustrate that using this method, you can come up with meaningful ways of conceptualizing a fictitious fight. It just depends on if you can incorporate all the necassary variables into the equation so that you're analyzing all the right stuff.

Hopefully that made sense, its 3 o clock in the morn-in'.

---

Semantics aside, I think we agree. Except nobody with more than 20 or 30 fights picked on MMAPlayground has a perfect record, which is why I think those imaginative scenarios (especially pitting two fighters that it is difficult to envision losing) are so difficult to accurately predict.

I don't think we disagree by the way.

Mostly though: if Anderson Silva was the same weight (with adjusted dimensions) as Fedor Emelianenko, he'd win. Just saying.

---

So would GSP, so would BJ Penn, in Lyoto's case he might too.

Listen matching them up same size is stupid for one reason, match them u at lightweight and brock isn't even top ten, he's like a sean sherk. Match them up at lightweight and Lyoto isn't even top ten. Match them up and lightweight and Fedors heavy punches and reliance on being significantly faster and better transitions than his oponents is gone so he falls below top ten. Put it at heaviweight and all GSP's well roundedness means nothing because his endurence wouldn't be high enough to carry his style. His hands aren't heavy enough and that left head kick is impractical and useless.


Take into account that style varies a lot due to what bodies can handle. P4P via simulating fights at same weight is a very simplistic and largely stupid way to condict P4P. Especially since some fighters win on size and are dominant because of that (GSP gets a lot of help) Fedor actually seems to have an advantage being small with huge power.

---

Well, in my opinion. Size shouldnt matter in a pound for pound arguement. Hence why i personally have gsp ranked lower than most.

Now i disagree with you on the specifics of your examples. Fedor and lightweight actually does well in my head. Hes not a wrestling takedown guy and most people who are hard to take down at LW are hard to takedown because of their sprawls and not so much their balance(bj aside). Fedor's takedowns are trips and throws, allowing his style of getting in throwing bombs before transitioning to the takedown still effective for the division. Also, just by the size of his back for his frame you can tell he would keep a huge portion of his power. Mix in the lack of striking at that weight and you still have a dominant recipe for success.

Lyoto, would do better in my opinion at a lower weight than he does at a higher weight. The lower the weight class the more it is dominated by grappling. Lyoto's footwork, balance, and sumo stuffs pretty much null any chance of a wrestler closing the distance on him, and theres no strikers to beat him at his own game, which is on the feet.

Bj Penn is the only top fighter that i can see shutting down Fedor's game. His balance and counter striking give him a way of controlling what fedor can do, and make him fight bj at his strongest. Going punch for punch on the feet..

I feel gsp couldnt control him on the ground, and couldnt maintain distance on the feet, paving the way for fedor to blast a hole through his face.

Anderson would do awesome on the feet, but i think he would pressure Fedor at all, allowing fedor to time a trip. And once its on the ground, i feel its an enormously tough fight for anderson.

Lyoto could stuff the takedowns since both are clinch based in their offense and defense of the takedown. But on the feet i feel he wont make the proper adjustments to stop fedor from coming forward and catching him with loopy accurate punches.

---

Posted by seanfu

---

Posted by marcoDGK

It's called Hype.

The hype monster was behind Brock full force.

---

Orrrr, his second fight was againd ex UFC heavyweight champ Frank Mir, who he was pounding unconscious until he got subbed. Then his 3ed fight ever he dominated Heath Herring who had over 40 fights.

He took out Randy when Randy Mir, and Nog were the only real talents around, and then smashed Mir. Nog and Randy are just done for and the new crop are now developed enough to get title shots.

Explain how the hype distorted Brock for me?

---

In my opinion-

Mir had a dumbass game plan in their second fight. Just like his dumbass game plan against Carwin. Brock had a huge advantage in the size department against Randy and I thought that fight was a gift. Randy is tough as nails but still… It was a gimmie fight for Brock, IMO. Heath Herring?! That guy is so over ratted. He has a loss for every 3 fights he fights. Experience is Experience but lots of fights don’t make you a good fighter.

I will stop calling it HYPE when I see Brock take beat Carwin (who everyone thought was hype also since he wasn’t fighting “top guys”)

I just don’t think Brock is that impressive or at least, his current wins are not that impressive. I think Carwin is a better version of Brock. If I am wrong, I will take back all the comments I have made about Brock being Hype. I won’t jump on the band wagon but I will take it back and admit I was wrong.

I like to keep it simple, I agree pound for pound SHOULD mean if everyone was in the same weight class, who would be the best. I dont rank it that way though. In all fairness a better depiction for the way I rank P4P would be "mano a mano" but it is what it is.

I rank it like this,
GSP vs Brock?
Aldo in with Machida?
Anderson vs Fedor?

In most cases Brock has a huge wrestling advantage and in the rare cases where he might be a little over-matched in skill take GSP as a example he's some much larger and stronger that it would probably pull him though and thats why I would rank him someplace in the top 10.

---

Posted by Jackelope

---

Posted by seanfu

So would GSP, so would BJ Penn, in Lyoto's case he might too.

Listen matching them up same size is stupid for one reason, match them u at lightweight and brock isn't even top ten, he's like a sean sherk. Match them up at lightweight and Lyoto isn't even top ten. Match them up and lightweight and Fedors heavy punches and reliance on being significantly faster and better transitions than his oponents is gone so he falls below top ten. Put it at heaviweight and all GSP's well roundedness means nothing because his endurence wouldn't be high enough to carry his style. His hands aren't heavy enough and that left head kick is impractical and useless.


Take into account that style varies a lot due to what bodies can handle. P4P via simulating fights at same weight is a very simplistic and largely stupid way to condict P4P. Especially since some fighters win on size and are dominant because of that (GSP gets a lot of help) Fedor actually seems to have an advantage being small with huge power.

---

You're not factoring in the whole equation when you make an assumption like that.

People who rank based on skillset also account for gains/losses whether they were to go up in weight or down. Take for example someone dropping GSP's skillset down to 145 to fight. This person would automatically assume that if GSP were to somehow be in that weight class that his speed, strength and endurance at 170 would match his equivalent at 145. I.E. his speed would improve, his strength would decrease, and his endurance would improve. They're not saying with his current speed, endurance and strength take him down there. They're saying take his skillset and put it into an equivalent body at 145 lbs.

All arguments for p4p are inherently flawed. p4p is such an abstract concept that you could nitpick every little piece of it to destroy someone's logic. You have to give people the benefit of the doubt where things like this are concerned. Everyone knows the speed of a 275 lb'er doesn't come anywhere close to the speed of a 155'er. Like I said- benefit of the doubt.

and for the record I'm not one of those people who bases it purely on skillset. Just defending them a bit and giving them the benefit of the doubt.

---

Its fantasy really, its still at best a educated guess and really there are SO many factors in a fighters performance that the only way to know is to know and have them fight, thats why I dont like the "If they all weighed the same" line of thinking.
Because they dont all weigh the same and different fighter fight better as you said at different weight classes, hell you could take to fighters and match there skills at light weight and fighter A would stomp fighter B then match them up again at heavyweight and fight B would stomp fighter A.

To make it easy lets just toss them all in a ring at there real weight and see how it plays out.

---

Posted by Jackelope

One interesting thing about the argument of every fighter being the exact same size with the exact same skillset to me is the fact that IMO GSP drops significantly in this style of ranking.

GSP's conditioning and strength lend themselves to his division dominance IMO. It is for this reason that I feel basing your p4p strictly on the principals of skillset is inherently flawed. That's why I'm a fan of mixing type 1 and 3 p4p.

If you look at Fedor and Anderson you will see that their physical strength and/or stature do not account at all for their division dominance. Also the two of them have had loads of success while fighting different sized opponents. GSP has been at 170 since I've followed his career.

---

This is one of the difficulties of generating a P4P list in a sport where strength is a key ingredient, but the reason I leave Georges St. Pierre at #2 for his talent alone is because I think that if he was at heavyweight his strength would be magnified and nobody, still, would be able to stop his shot.

I'm of the Type 0 way to rank P4P; that it's not even worth trying.

I know I'm not adding anything at all to the topic, but I've hated P4P talk for 20+ years from when I used to only watch boxing and they'd compare boxers on broadcasts saying who was better P4P and there was never any good insight at all towards why they came up with their point. It's just not something that any two people will see exactly the same as there's no definable criteria and never will be. I guess I just don't see a reason to have it be as popular to talk about as it seems to be.

P4P talk is about as relevant as a Larry Merchant ramble, but less funny.

So apparently that was my bah humbug post for the year. I'll toss another out in 2011.

---

Posted by Kpro

I'm of the Type 0 way to rank P4P; that it's not even worth trying.

I know I'm not adding anything at all to the topic, but I've hated P4P talk for 20+ years from when I used to only watch boxing and they'd compare boxers on broadcasts saying who was better P4P and there was never any good insight at all towards why they came up with their point. It's just not something that any two people will see exactly the same as there's no definable criteria and never will be. I guess I just don't see a reason to have it be as popular to talk about as it seems to be.

P4P talk is about as relevant as a Larry Merchant ramble, but less funny.

So apparently that was my bah humbug post for the year. I'll toss another out in 2011.

---

This.

True, but you can come up with an elite list of fighters. In my case top 5 P4P is really all I usually rank. Its all about the order. if P4P is really so abstract that it can't function then why is pretty much everyone's list the same in those top 5 slots?

Anderson- GSP- Penn- Lyoto and somewhere in there you fit Fedor. but aside from fedor noone really even debates this order.

---

Posted by seanfu

True, but you can come up with an elite list of fighters. In my case top 5 P4P is really all I usually rank. Its all about the order. if P4P is really so abstract that it can't function then why is pretty much everyone's list the same in those top 5 slots?

Anderson- GSP- Penn- Lyoto and somewhere in there you fit Fedor. but aside from fedor noone really even debates this order.

---

So basically the most dominant 5 fighters in the 5 main weight classes over the last few years?

Not too hard to imagine why they dominate most peoples list, they have been the best in their respective weight classes for years. Still doesn't form any criteria for P4P. Maybe picking the most dominant from each weight class IS the criteria for P4P for most people. That's all it tells me.

It's an interesting topic to me because it debates the finer points of fighting and what makes a great fighter across all weight classes. Admittedly, though... sometimes it is one of the most frustrating debates to take part in because some people rank on god-knows-what criteria.

---

Posted by Kpro

So apparently that was my bah humbug post for the year. I'll toss another out in 2011.

---

Well... yeah... 'Bah, humbug' about sums it up.

I don't see why we can't make a comparison of Fighter-A and Fighter-B that can never be 'settled' in the cage. We're here to talk about MMA, after all, and that's all this is - talk. And sports talk is never about any two people seeing something exactly the same. I also don't see any need for sports talk to be 'relevant.' This forum would be nothing but a news site if either of those things were true. And while good analysis defines its terms, restricts itself to narrow parameters, and supports its conclusions with evidence, there's no requirement that a post here be that rigorous (I guess the News and MMA Training sections might be the exceptions - I wouldn't want someone just talking out of their a** there).

I think Travis Fulton is #1 p4p because he has more wins than anyone... Severn is a distant second.



But really, I think there is merit in a p4p discussion, if only to hear what the public opinion is on a fighter and to generally get even more nerdy about mma than I already am. I personally base my p4p rankings on (.5)quality of competition+(.5)skills shown, with those variables being my own personal assesment of a fighter's skill level and the competition he has faced and how he fared against it.


Thus, even though Edgar beat BJ and I have him ranked ahead in the LW rankings, I have BJ in my p4p and not Edgar (although he is right there at 11 or 12).
Instead, I have Kenny Florian ranked ahead of Edgar because in every fight except BJ he has been dominant for a while now, and I see his skills as slightly better than Edgar's.

I have Anderson at number 1 because he has not been challenged in a long time, and has fought top notch competition. Plus, I think where Anderson's fighting skills are at right now is ahead of the other two main contenders, GSP and Fedor. GSP has probably fought the best competition of any of the champs and has been dominant. He also has an up to now unstoppable takedown. Anderson and GSP are neck and neck in my mind as the best fighter on the planet, or #1 p4p or whatever you want to call it. Fedor is right behind those two due mainly to a lack of quality in HW in general, but also because while I have no doubt he is the greatest fighter of all time up to now, some parts of his game seem a bit antiquated in my eyes. I don't think he is getting the same kind of training, nutrition, and conditioning that fighters have adopted here in the US and Brazil as well as other UFC-related international camps.

Aldo is a tough one to call for me because he doesn't face the same kind of competition that the heavier fighters do. But a Supreme Court Justice once answered when asked how he knows the difference between art of nude models and pornography, "I know it when I see it." That is how it is with Aldo, if you know what a great fighter looks like, then you know that Aldo is one in a way that Brown, Torres, or Faber never were.

I have Machida ahead of Shogun because even though I think he lost that fight I
he has been very dominant whereas Shogun has slowly returned to his old self and now is moving beyond that. Whoever wins this next one will be ahead and will probably be in my top 5.